Occam's corner + Research and development | The Guardianhttps://www.theguardian.com/science/occams-corner+technology/research
Indexen-gbGuardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. 2016Fri, 09 Dec 2016 13:55:18 GMT2016-12-09T13:55:18Zen-gbGuardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. 2016The Guardianhttps://assets.guim.co.uk/images/guardian-logo-rss.c45beb1bafa34b347ac333af2e6fe23f.pnghttps://www.theguardian.com
Big picture science: who decides?https://www.theguardian.com/science/occams-corner/2014/jun/11/big-picture-science-who-decides
<p>The government wants input on how to spend the capital budget. But how easy is it to back a winner?</p><p>Scientific research is performed for the good of all mankind, but one of the inherent paradoxes is that it is too complex and specialised for most of its beneficiaries to grasp. So arcane is the knowledge and training required to pursue a scientific trade that even a scientist doesn’t necessarily understand the workings of other scientists in different fields. As a cell biologist, I’m quite comfortable manipulating genes and observing living cells in action using complex machinery and chemistry, but I’m clueless when it comes to the secrets of the cosmos or in parsing mathematics more intricate than the workaday equations I use in the lab.</p><p>The one thing the various professional sciences do have in common is their great expense – and the fact that the majority of this funding is from the public purse. A complicated ecosystem of funding has evolved to cope with dispensing limited funds to all of the projects deemed worthy of support, most of it grounded in meritocracy – in other words, money should be given to those projects that fellow scientists deem the best. It makes sense to allow scientists to make these detailed decisions, given that they are, in theory, best equipped to understand what is being proposed. I would feel very uncomfortable, for example, if asked to make these sorts of decisions in an area – such as particle physics – that I know nothing about. And I guess a non-scientist would feel similarly unequipped.</p> <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/science/occams-corner/2014/jun/11/big-picture-science-who-decides">Continue reading...</a>Science policyScienceScience funding crisisResearch and developmentTechnologyPoliticsWed, 11 Jun 2014 08:00:03 GMThttp://www.theguardian.com/science/occams-corner/2014/jun/11/big-picture-science-who-decidesPhotograph: Mira / Alamy/AlamyMagnetic resonance imaging – MRI – came out of seemingly esoteric work on the magnetic resonance of polymers and metals. Photograph: Mira/AlamyPhotograph: Mira / Alamy/AlamyMagnetic resonance imaging – MRI – came out of seemingly esoteric work on the magnetic resonance of polymers and metals. Photograph: Mira/AlamyJenny Rohn2014-06-11T08:00:03ZDo today's scientific practices really suppress brilliant breakthroughs? | Jenny Rohnhttps://www.theguardian.com/science/occams-corner/2014/mar/20/science-mavericks-breakthrough-letter-nobel
<p>The modern research profession is not without its flaws, but even without Richard Feynman it still packs a serious punch</p><p>Are scientific mavericks, such as the flamboyant and brilliant bongo-playing Richard Feynman, an extinct product of the 20th century? And is science today relatively too staid and constrained to deliver the great breakthroughs such mavericks used to make? In a <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/mar/18/we-need-more-scientific-mavericks">letter to the Guardian</a> on Tuesday, UCL scientist Donald Braben and a list of co-signatories, including a few Nobel laureates, say they think so.</p><p>Although there is no doubt that science has changed enormously over the years, have these changes really been that detrimental? For starters, science has morphed from a pursuit of the relatively privileged few into a vast, professionalised global army of millions of researchers. The ranks are swelling with people burning with curiosity and eager to make discoveries – as indeed the job comes with few other incentives. The profession is now open to those whose upbringings are modest and who are not just white males. A diverse group brings with it diverse ways of defining and tackling problems. It also brings competition, which can help bring the best ideas to fruition the fastest.</p> <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/science/occams-corner/2014/mar/20/science-mavericks-breakthrough-letter-nobel">Continue reading...</a>Richard FeynmanPeer review and scientific publishingScienceResearch and developmentResearch fundingResearchPeople in scienceThu, 20 Mar 2014 09:12:19 GMThttp://www.theguardian.com/science/occams-corner/2014/mar/20/science-mavericks-breakthrough-letter-nobelPhotograph: PAUL SAKUMA/APElizabeth Blackburn, who discovered an enzyme behind the secret of human lifespan, and shared the 2009 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine. Photograph: PAUL SAKUMA/APPhotograph: PAUL SAKUMA/APElizabeth Blackburn, who discovered an enzyme behind the secret of human lifespan, and shared the 2009 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine. Photograph: PAUL SAKUMA/APJenny Rohn2014-03-20T09:12:19ZHow can non-scientists influence the course of scientific research? | Cath Ennishttps://www.theguardian.com/science/occams-corner/2013/oct/23/non-scientists-scientific-research-communication
Science communication should be more than the dissemination of results to the public; it should also flow in the other direction, with members of the public able to communicate their priorities to scientists and those who fund them. But how?<p>Scientific research has an enormous impact on modern society, with its effects felt in many aspects of our lives. But scientists are also part of that society, and can adapt their research topics and methods to reflect its ever-changing priorities. All too often, though, these priorities are dictated by governments or by the private sector, while the views of members of the public aren't heard. However, it's certainly possible for interested individuals to influence the course of scientific research.</p><p><strong>Follow the (grant) money</strong></p> <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/science/occams-corner/2013/oct/23/non-scientists-scientific-research-communication">Continue reading...</a>ScienceScience policyResearchResearch fundingEducationResearch and developmentTechnologyWed, 23 Oct 2013 11:03:00 GMThttp://www.theguardian.com/science/occams-corner/2013/oct/23/non-scientists-scientific-research-communicationPhotograph: US Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious DiseaseScientists don't conduct their research in isolation from society &ndash; at least, not all scientists, all of the time. Photograph:<a href="http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File%3ABiosafety_level_4_hazmat_suit.jpg"> US Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Disease</a>Photograph: US Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious DiseaseScientists don't conduct their research in isolation from society &ndash; at least, not all scientists, all of the time. Photograph:<a href="http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File%3ABiosafety_level_4_hazmat_suit.jpg"> US Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Disease</a>Cath Ennis2013-10-23T11:03:00ZWhat do TV screens, bullet-proof vests and soap all have common? | Athene Donaldhttps://www.theguardian.com/science/occams-corner/2013/feb/20/tv-screens-bullet-proof-vests-soap
They all work because of liquid crystallinity, a structure in which molecules are aligned without being packed regularly<p>Many people will be familiar with the idea that our TV screens are "LC" (liquid crystal) displays – but what are liquid crystals exactly? And how does they relate to why soap is effective at cleaning us? If you know what a liquid is (key properties include that it flows and changes shape to fit the container in which it sits), and have a memory of copper sulphate crystals at the bottom of a test-tube from school chemistry lessons, the idea of a liquid crystal may seem a bit odd. It is, however, a well-defined state of matter which sits comfortably between liquids and crystals in its underlying molecular packing. Actually, that should be states of matter: there are a range of different phases which qualify under the "liquid crystal" banner.</p> <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/science/occams-corner/2013/feb/20/tv-screens-bullet-proof-vests-soap">Continue reading...</a>PhysicsChemistryScienceResearch and developmentTechnologyWed, 20 Feb 2013 11:43:00 GMThttp://www.theguardian.com/science/occams-corner/2013/feb/20/tv-screens-bullet-proof-vests-soapPhotograph: Athene DonaldPolarised light micrograph of a liquid crystalline phase formed from a solution of the synthetic polypeptide poly gamma-benzyl L-glutamate. Photograph: Athene DonaldPhotograph: Athene DonaldPolarised light micrograph of a liquid crystalline phase formed from a solution of the synthetic polypeptide poly gamma-benzyl L-glutamate. Photograph: Athene DonaldAthene Donald2013-02-20T11:43:00Z